Countries willing to pass on a US patent to China stop getting the chips (or, in this case, chip-making jobs, realistically, but that still hurts)

Also Taiwan doesn’t wanna help China and even if a US sanction was just an excuse to hurt China and get away with it they’d probably do it.

Edit: in this case, this chip is “foreign-produced items […] that are the direct product of U.S. technology or software”, according to the article. I feel it was implied but clarity is always good. US technology, used with permission in a Taiwanese good, and that permission could be retracted.

I doubt it.

For the same reasons, really. People who already intend to thoroughly go over the input and output to use AI as a tool to help them write a paper would always have had a chance to spot this. People who are in a rush or don’t care about the assignment, it’s easier to overlook.

Also, given the plagiarism punishments out there that also apply to AI, knowing there’s traps at all is a deterrent. Plenty of people would rather get a 0 rather than get expelled in the worst case.

If this went viral enough that it could be considered common knowledge, it would reduce the effectiveness of the trap a bit, sure, but most of these techniques are talked about intentionally, anyway. A teacher would much rather scare would-be cheaters into honesty than get their students expelled for some petty thing. Less paperwork, even if they truly didn’t care about the students.

Right, but the whitespace between instructions wasn’t whitespace at all but white text on white background instructions to poison the copy-paste.

Also the people who are using chatGPT to write the whole paper are probably not double-checking the pasted prompt. Some will, sure, but this isnt supposed to find all of them its supposed to catch some with a basically-0% false positive rate.

Most satellites are in low-earth orbit where drag is minimal, not nonexistent. Further out adds too much latency and weakens the signal too much for most commercial applications.

That is genuinely the argument insurance companies would use, and they’re allowed to charge more for more risk, that’s the basis of insurance.

No one’s guilty, and insurance companies stent courts. If they had to do an innocent before guilty, everyone would get one free car wreck and you wouldn’t pay monthly for insurance until you wrecked someone.

It just needs to have the water and air removed, really, which is accomplished the same way as jerky, remove a bunch of it, then stick in a silicate packet, those ones that say not to eat them.

That is a footnote

If they’re still working, they don’t need your support. Focus on staying in touch with them, and let them know that if they do need you, you’re here.

Like someone else said, instead putting money into savings, so that a future need can come out of that instead of your current funds, that’ll mitigate the future need.

Depending on the specific game itself, we can boil down the multiple-stat problem in a few ways. If the goal is to get all the stats as high as possible evenly, then we can assign each stat a multiplier based on how low it is. Fixing lower stats becomes worth more than buffing higher stats. That multiplier would depend on the game, on how much it punishes the low stat. The multiplier itself might end up being a whole new problem to solve, but for now I’ll just say its not my problem and call it X.

Whatever X is though, every stat can then be reduced to a single value using it. Super-low fortitude should be buffed over already-high mana according to X, so all of the numerical values in the game become directly comparable at any stage in this problem. Then I expect it will be equivalent to the knapsack problem. Each item in the game will boost several stats in certain ways, and all of those boosts can be combined using X to become our item value in the knapsack problem.

So I consider it to be the knapsack problem + figuring out X (which might be NP-complete on its own, depending on the game).

That was Illinois but honestly it’s just obvious in any state with a recreational/medicinal use law.

It’s ridiculous they’re allowed to keep using it as an excuse in general.

I did the same thing. It was allowed in general, with the correct thought, “if you can code it yourself, you know the content”

I had another “program” that would fail to run but that’s because I wrote notes into it. Doubt that was allowed.

Typewriters.

They had bars that needed to physically move, and so staggering them helped them not collide and get jammed.

If you imagine a bar coming from the center of each key towards your screen, you can see how the staggering was helpful. For instance, M misses J and K above it, naturally, but it also slightly misses I and the 8 above that.

It’s a great solution for a nonexistent problem in keyboards.

Completely agree.

The only reason the relative had it at all was because of those old fears. As soon as I learned that they had it bundled with the computer (hate that. Malware’s gotta get in somewhere though I guess), I knew why it was being slow.

I hold this up as an example because even their own troubleshooting website and a program dedicated to the purpose above and beyond the usual uninstaller couldn’t do it though. Avast doesn’t even know its own malware.

Also this nonsense got me the chance to put mint on their computer, but the “switch to Linux” argument isn’t constructive in this particular spot. They didn’t end up sticking to it because a required-for-school piece of software for tests just doesn’t do Linux at all. Couldn’t get it to run in wine or even a virtual machine either, and they’re not great at the whole computer thing so I didn’t wanna be tech support for dual booting.

Here’s an example. I removed avast via the uninstaller on a relatives computer, it made it laggy as hell. I restart after as the uninstaller demands, but it was still there.

Searching, I find this official support option. https://support.avast.com/en-us/article/10

The official Avast Uninstall Tool, the tool to use when the included uninstaller didn’t work.

The official uninstall tool didn’t work either. I ran it in safe mode, like it said. Didn’t work, either, but it removed some stuff, and finally let me delete some things manually. Ran it again in safe mode after that, finally seems to have removed everything.

Anyway it’s a great example of if a company doesn’t know what they’re about, windows has no process to recover from that. Window’s process is identical to a Walmart employee saying. “I dunno, man, contact the manufacturer.” Genuinely, its usually enough, but when its not, there’s absolutely no recourse.

Can’t I’m pretty certain Wonka still has the patent.

The issue here is because they’re linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.

So although they don’t own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.

The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that’s even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we’d expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.

Another vote for “well-written”. I have read both, and both are good if they’re done well. Besides, I don’t usually have the option when I find a book, the summaries rarely tell me and I’m not gonna dig through the middle of the book for the answer to this question.

What I care about is being able to connect with the characters. If I can connect to someone in a realistic relationship, great. If I can connect to someone and they get that idealist treatment, great. If I can connect to someone and it seems like a romance but it’s abusive and the book becomes a realistic horror novel, that’s also great, I’ll feel the fear and desperation.

I never have wanted to read a book to have a specific experience, is my point. If your experience was well-written, it would be good.

Well they still have a finite life and are less replaceable than a battery. Even if it quadrupled the lifespan (which is a reasonably generous estimate given OP’s 4-year duration and wikipedia telling me supercapacitors last 10-15 years), it would still eventually need to be replaced and that would generally require resoldering it.

I think a much better solution is 2 battery slots, one to be a backup battery, unused, and then when needed, an LED on the mobo can be turned on. Honestly OP could jury-rig up a similar system if he wanted to, although it’d be a bit ugly and anytime something is jury-rigged I don’t really think of it as reliable.

The only real solution is to make this an extended maintenance task. The batteries are cheap so an alert every 4 years is likely sufficient to replace the battery before it dies. You could do it every 2 or 3 years instead at your discretion.

The thing they’re trying to market is a lot of people genuinely don’t know what to say at certain times. Instead of replacing an emotional activity, its meant to be used when you literally can’t do it but need to.

Obviously that’s not the way it should go, but it is an actual problem they’re trying to talk to. I had a friend feel real down in high school because his parents didn’t attend an award ceremony, and I couldn’t help cause I just didn’t know what to say. AI could’ve hypothetically given me a rough draft or inspiration. Obviously I wouldn’t have just texted what the AI said, but it could’ve gotten me past the part I was stuck on.

In my experience, AI is shit at that anyway. 9 times out of 10 when I ask it anything even remotely deep it restates the problem like “I’m sorry to hear your parents couldn’t make it”. AI can’t really solve the problem google wants it to, and I’m honestly glad it can’t.